Menu

….After a year has passed since his wife’s death, the King takes a new wife, who is beautiful but also unutterably wicked and vain. The new Queen possesses a Magic Mirror which she asks every morning: “Magic mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in the land?”. The mirror always replies: “My Queen, you are the fairest in the land.” The Queen is always pleased with that, because the magic mirror never lies. But, when Snow White reaches the age of seven, she becomes as beautiful as the day and even more beautiful than the Queen and when the Queen asks her mirror, it responds: “My Queen, you are the fairest here so true. But Snow White is a thousand times more beautiful than you.”

This gives the queen a great shock, and she becomes yellow and green with envy, and from that hour her heart turns against Snow White, and with every following day she hates Snow White more and more. Envy and pride, like ill weeds, grow in her heart taller every day, until she has no peace day or night. The Queen orders a huntsman to take Snow White into the deepest woods to be killed *…

I used to be quite into Brazilian Ju Jitsu. Our local club had an horrific churn rate as new guys would come in to class and not come back. It was easy to know who would stick around – the unassuming guys who had come to learn. It was equally easy to predict the first day dropouts. They’d be wearing some tough guy clothes, perhaps insisting on wearing a coloured belt they’d picked up in a sports centre grading mill. They’d certainly have a stiff pride about them. Then one of our scrawny blue belts would wipe the mat with them. The ego death was simply too much to take. Their buffer had been overrun and their self-image could not take the real-world evidence that they simply weren’t as tough as they thought they were. So it is with Game.

Newbies are often told that the girl isn’t rejecting you, she’s rejecting your approach. This is only half-true. When you street stop a girl she is holding a mirror up to you. Only it’s not your flattering magic mirror telling you you’re the coolest in the land. She’s doesn’t care for your buffers or your pretty lies. She feels an instinctive emotional reaction to what you present to her and she makes the flirt/escape decision in a heartbeat. The mirror speaks the truth.

It takes only one session of daygame, one run of five consecutive blowouts to realise you ain’t all that. You are not as high value as you led yourself to believe. The weak among you (most men) will scurry back behing the buffers. The stupid will plod on without processing the evidence becoming increasingly angry approach machines. Only the smart and dedicated will process the feedback honestly and realise “I have a lot of work to do on my value.”

When a girl rejects you she is giving an assessment on your entire sexual market value.

Now there are fine gradations of this and while its not necessarily true on any single set it is true in aggregate over the session. Even if she has a boyfriend you’ll see flickers of attraction if she fancies you. Even if she’s in a mad hurry you’ll see her light up a little. It’s only when your SMV is way below hers will she eye-roll, sigh and give you the “how dare you hit on me” response. If that happens, sure get angry that she’s a rude bitch if you want, but process the feedback of why it happened. You ain’t all that.

When a high value woman refuses to have sex with a low value PUA, that is the sexual market functioning correctly.

So granted that you are getting blown out alot and an uncomfortable rate of bad responses, what are you to do? Step one is accept the reality. If you’ve been hit by a bus its not bravery to throw yourself back in front of the next one. Self-diagnose your approach to see what was off about it. Was it shaky vocal delivery? weak eye contact? lack of intent? angry vibe? A good daygame approach requires hundreds of microbehaviours to align into a single well-delivered whole and that’s not easy at all.

If your technique was acceptable its time to look deeper. Did you fail to correctly calibrate to the context such as by opening her as she’s coming away from a cash machine, or chatting animatedly on a phone? Did you adopt a try-hard alpha posture as a buffer to rejection that is transparent to everyone but yourself? Get someone better than you to offer straight feedback.

The problem might be deeper still.You may be hitting on girls above your league. Oh sure, that’s PUA heresy that its not all in your head. Its manosphere heresy that a woman might be too good for you. But if you’re a runtish chode hitting on 19 year old models you should be expecting nothing but harsh blowouts. You’ve got nothing to offer her. Perhaps the answer is to stop approaching hotties and do some serious work on your value. Get to the gym, get a make-over, travel, educate yourself. Make yourself the kind of man a hot young girl would expect to be having sex with. I’m thirty-eight years old and usually hit on girls around their early twenties. This is a huge ask and I have to be bang on my vibe to pull it off.

All men build buffers around themselves to flatter their self esteem and avoid rejection. Every single one of us, myself included. Root them out. Figure out how you are fooling yourself. The easiest single step is to go out into the street and open ten girls. Welcome the responses they are giving you. The harsh blowouts and the flat zero-attraction chats are offering you far more constructive feedback than any online forum can. Compile a wealth of this information, figure out where you stand, and then make a promise to yourself that from this ground zero you will build yourself up.

Accept the reflection that stares back at you.

* Sending for the woodsman = getting angry at the players who are outperforming you. “But I’ve been doing game just as long as you, I’ve done just as many sets as you… why aren’t I banging hot girls…. waaaaahhhhhhh”. I’ll bet those other players process reality far better than you do.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

51 Comments

What is your success rate? How many approaches have you done? How many led to sex? How many hours a day do you spend trotting up and down the sidewalk? And how much of your “value” was was the result of being a mysterious Westerner in a “developing” country? How much success do you think you would have as a short bald man living with 3 or 4 other dudes in a pua castle in, say, the US? [call for the huntsman. K]

That’s a big mistake. Take a “break” for a few months and you will not be ahead, you will be behind. That’s months of experience you are throwing out the window and the bottom line is this – Fear. [I believe in “work smarter, not harder”. Relentless approaching despite it not working is its own form of avoidance. Typically its an avoidance of looking deep inwards at your inner game issues. K.]

Tyler has talked about something similar. He promotes going out as much as possible as the route to go, as opposed to working on yourself first. His belief is that when you just go out, the feedback from women will expose your flaws, and you will see the traits of successful guys around you, and so realize what you need to work on in order to become competitive. Also if you are going out regularly, then all the bad feedback will give you the extra kick you need to get your shit together. [Yes, but the RSD crowd overdoes it and degenerates into spam approaches and thinking state/self-expression is everything. Which it isn’t. Better to be approaching than not, but you just need walk Oxford Street on a mid-week evening to see a load of clowns spamming approaches month after month and getting nowhere because they are too stupid to process the actual feedback they are getting. K.]

I agree Krauser. I suppose the best way of going about it is by both taking massive action by going out and approaching, and reflecting on your approaches and what needs to be done to improve your results (whether that is to improve your game, or build your value (whatever that is I don’t know, as whenever I see true 9s they are never with some buff guy with a good job)).

Very inspiring, K. You of all artists are able to depict the hard journey which every ambitious man should take on. This article reminds me of Stephen King’s take on the matter :
“Only enemies speak the truth ; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty”.

If you want to know your true value, don’t ask your mommy if you look good. Go out there and face your demons.

Indeed as the bad seargent in “Platoon” (Tom Berenger’s character) said when everyone was getting high “I don’t need to escape reality. I am reality”. And it also reminds me of an experiment/study when all these chimps in a cage were able to take some drug (I believe it was cocaine) by tapping on a lever. Only one monkey refrained: the alpha male.

I spent time with a guy who took me apart, tore shreds from me. He told me the truth that no one had ever told me. I lasted 5 months then ran away when it got too much. Nevertheless he changed me. He said the only way for me improve was to constantly risk being annihilated.’Me’ being my idea of myself. So now im throwing myself into the things i fear, and taking detailed notes about what i experience. There is alot of resistance but im committed. Im 35yo with no time more to waste.

Thanks K – for the transparency of this blog. This post is spot on the money.

I’m curious about goals, goal alignments, and priorities. Specifically, you mention BJJ – what were your goals when you got into BJJ? [I had been boxing and saw the early UFCS. I realised I had no tools to deal with a guy who wrestled me, so there was a glaring gap in my game. I decided BJJ would best fill that gap. I never thought I was tough. I wanted to become tough. K.]

I imagine the guys you mentioned who came into BJJ thinking they were tough only to dropout once proven otherwise, either had unclear goals, or goals that were not inline with their reality.

I’ve noticed that the better you are able to define your goals when starting out and the better you are able to define your plan to reach those goals. The better chance you have at success…

I would also not leave out the importance of outside opinions (of those better than you) and constant revaluation of your goals and your progress toward them (and re-strategizing accordingly if need be)

The guy(s) here and on the manosphere in general trolling about westerners (specifically British guys) having a God Mode in EE destinations need to actually put their keyboards and kleenexes away and book several holidays over a year to various of these fabled EE destinations (as Krauser regularly does) to test out their theories and lap up the sea of poon they inevitably expect.

They will be sorely disappointed: I’ve been in this game a while now and I can score faster in London with local talent than in Romania/Serbia/Poland etc because the girls are less traditional in the UK and the American style short term hookup culture is spreading quickly… compared to this quite a few of the top girls i’ve met in EE have hookup values straight from the early 20th century.

The reason regulars go to EE countries is because they are searching for the lost, the possibility of meeting one of those girls that no longer exist in western countries, feminine, sweet, with old school values and takes care of herself to be as sexy as possible for her man. Good luck finding her in London.

There *IS* a value increase from being a Westerner in a poorer country but it is significantly mitigated by the pussy guarding that quality girls indulge in due to being her only real asset in life to get ahead. Hence paradoxically it gets harder to bang quality in EE often.

I can’t comment on banging EE <7s as I dont do that. Do some on the ground research before resorting to well worn straw men.

Your assessment is good. Everyone should re-Listen to Krauser’s recent podcast where they specifically address this: better get good at it at home before setting off of perceived poissy paradise. I will say this though: they stop in the street and are friendly in Moscow because you’re a novelty: they give you the time of day.

Agreed, but I have to admit I do generally get far better responses from non-English girls. Still though, from open to sex is a long way, and you don’t get there consistently without having good game regardless of where the girl is from.

I don’t get rejected that much, usually if I ask for the number I get it. But I often get flaked on after, and that’s from an approach with a 10min convo with some good excitement and comfort building. i’m finding it difficult to pin-point where my weakness is. [Probably not showing enough sexual intent. If you have trouble doing it covertly with eye-contact, light kino and physical encroachment then experiment with overt intent – “do you have a boyfriend?”, “I’m talking to you as a man to a woman”, “I want to take you out” etc. You’ll get more rejections and stronger numbers. K.]

Did you ever have a form of lightbulb moment Krauser where you suddently just felt different about you? ie in your case became stricter with women, clear idea of who you are, what to talk about that actually means something rather than smalltalk etc basically what was YOUR RED PILL LIKE?

Reading your book now – you really gotta get a publicist to promote it : it’s that good. Very well put this article. You gotta write that book on blue pill to red transition you mention in your book. You don’t write as often as CH but your insights are just as good. This is a particularly good article, a classic even. Top 50 or 100 manosphere/game related posts for sure. It’s going in my compilation. I heard the other day that 3000 people have made it to the top of Everest (probably fewer have made this transition blue-red). I have no desire to get to the top of Everest – This is my Everest….

Exactly what value do you have outside of your learned charisma? You’re not rich. You’re not handsome. You’re not tall. You’re not built. You haven’t had a real job since you divorced your wife in ’09. All you have is your game. Now admittedly that’s alot. But what is this bullshit your selling about “increase your value”? All you increased was your dress style and your charisma. Along with that you’re good at playing dominance games with the girls, which I admit is very important. But you have little value after that.

My point. This post makes it seem as if there is some major mountain to climb. There isn’t. Most men on this earth are not world beaters. What game has demonstrated is the value of structured personality conveyance and the importance of male psychological strenght. That’s it.

A psychologically healthy man who can buy a new wardrobe and develop the balls to approach women with confidence can do the same fucking thing. I despise this hero worship bullshit from wannabe puas. This shit is not hard. Only overgrown teenagers think it is.

Jack – you said it yourself “Develop the balls to approach women with confidence” : there’s a lot to that statement. To that I’d add “and learned self awareness, approaching frequently, and learning from mistakes”. As my driving teacher said long ago “10 years from now you’ll either be a driver with 10 years of experience or a driver with one year of experience 10 times”. FYI I feel very much like 1 year of driving experience 10 times and am here to learn. I would posit that it’s not easy for most. the expertise is lacking and I’m not reaching my potential, as I suspect many/most on here are not. We are trying to reach our potential in this respect just as in a sport or a dance style where there are LOTS of things we need to get right.

The post states:

“A good daygame approach requires hundreds of microbehaviours to align into a single well-delivered whole”

and as he correctly points out

“and that’s not easy at all.” If it’s easy for you then hats off: you have other mountains to climb. It strikes me very much like a sport or other discipline: I’m not surprised that Krauser has extensive experience in sports in which he has not given up and gained expertise. Ever ski moguls ? When those huge bumps the size of Volkswagens start to come at you fast it takes a lot of learned reflexes, knowhow, and technique to handle them. How about salsa ? When the music is fast and the girl you’re dancing with is at a high level (a 9 or 10 in the subject at hand to make the analogy clear) and highly calibrated you better know exactly what the F*&# you’re doing or she aint dancing with you again.

We’re not talking about business or achievement value as far as SMV is concerned.

From what I gather, the type of value Krauser talks about here is his value both to himself and to others to whom he wishes to dispense it (thereby excluding those who care excessively for money, looks, prestige, or anything he doesn’t generally care about) for whatever reason suits him.

It’s not just charisma, it’s the knowledge that he is a man that has had and can generate the sort of experiences that those he wants would want to have. Looks and a fat wallet can augment that, but they aren’t necessary for it. As you say, any number of schmucks can dress well and learn to be charming, as you say – but it’s a rare schmuck that can do something extraordinarily and uniquely his of which others want to partake.

Value is context-dependent and the context of this blog is game. Let the results speak for themselves.

You and I are the same age. I was a bit disappointed in reading this post because in that interview you did with the london real guys you seemed to be making a lot of personal development progress and said some very enlightened things. Then I read this post.

It seems from reading this that you assign way too much value to what the girls give or don’t give you (their feedback), and you don’t in any way seem to consider that the girls may or may not be beneath you. It’s a one way system for you. Does that not seem off when you stand back and look at it?

I get that you’ve had a lot of hookups and my guess is that this is what’s holding you back, stuck in an infinite loop . You’ll always be the one being mercilessly evaluated, the one trying to raise his game and his value.

The irony is, your value and your game are right there at all times, but you don’t see them because you’re so hung up on what some random chick on the street gives or doesn’t give you from one moment to the next.

That’s all very well, Krauser. But as you say, there’s only so much of your value that you control, and only so much of your value you were actually responsible in creating. Those pretty girls who may be ruthlessly cutting to an unattractive man (and vice versa) on the approach are in many cases completely unjustified in doing so; in fact, it’s morally reprehensible. Victim blaming, for sure. Some of those men are unattractive through absolutely no fault of their own, so why should pretty women treat them as second-class citizens? Should they ‘know their place’? If so, this is morally equivalent to seeing the disabled as untermenschen because they are disabled, a morally repugnant view as I think most people will admit.

I actually heard your criticism of feminism as old, ugly women getting annoyed at young, pretty women appropriating a disproportionate share of ‘male resources’ (the most attractive men, basically). I think that the feminists are right, if those are their intentions; young pretty women who disproportionately appropriate male resources on the basis of their youth and attractiveness have NO desert-based claim to those resources. Their youth and attractiveness (assuming its plainly not because they’ve gone to the gym a lot, or dress really well) are morally arbitrary factors in causal responsibility, so they’re independent of desert. If we assume the measure for the legitimacy of a claim is desert-based, young pretty girls have as much a claim to those male resources as old ugly girls (namely, none whatsoever). If claims are equal, then the disproportionate appropriation of resources by the young pretty girls is illegitimate. We should, therefore, be campaigning towards redistribution of those resources in a fairer, more egalitarian way.

What implications does this view have concerning female resources? Say I’m a scrawny short hard-gainer who tries hard but is of naturally average intelligence and has beat-up facial features, and was bullied for years as a child so have severe social confidence issues. I will never be able to appropriate the female resources that a male model who is naturally intelligent and confident (due to his positive reinforcement for his athletic prowess from a very early age) will be able to. Is this fair? No. The legitimacy of our claims to those resources are equal in strength.

I think the naturally attractive have an obligation to spend time improving the lives of the naturally unattractive, and seeing them as people who ought to be judged based on what they are actually morally responsible for, and therefore quite apart from their ‘natural sexual market value’. Maybe the mirror is right about your value, but perhaps the mirror ought to be called out for what it really is – a device that inflicts pain (at least in many cases) on those who don’t deserve it.

And by the way, this view is an extended form of a political theory called ‘luck egalitarianism’, which incidentally is almost universally disliked by feminist academics. [You’re a whining equalist value-taker. Why on earth should these pretty women give what they have to you? K.]

The pretty women or men can’t ‘give’ their looks away. However, men and women with lower natural sexual market value should be treated with respect and compensated in other ways. Of course, the use of terms like ‘chode’ are simply hate crimes. It is brute luck that Miss World looks like she does; she ‘deserves’ the social goods that follow no more than anybody else. [That’s the whole mentality I’m exposing – that you deserve anything at all. The world doesn’t owe you a single thing. “Chode” is a hate crime, for fucks sake stop being such a child. Such whiners really need to read this Cracked article. K.]

Well if nobody deserves anything at all, then surely Miss World doesn’t deserve her looks. Don’t we each deserve to be treated with equal concern and respect? If so, that has distributive implications. You’re assuming absolute property rights which have no theoretical basis. (I say this as a former anarcho-capitalist) Philosophically, Austrian School-esque political theories really don’t get off the ground…oh, and shame about the gold and inflation right? [We’re talking about women’s instinctual emotional responses to wanting to have sex, and here you are whining, aspying and trying to construct some elaborate pretext for why someone else should hand over their value to you without getting anything back that they care about. That’s the attitude stopping you getting laid. You’re a taker and getting all gamma-raged about it because no one is giving it up. K.]

You reject the concept of ‘desert’. It is hard to see how your claim to your own wages is justified. In that case, what makes it wrong for me to steal your pay packet when you’re not looking? If your boss decided to pay me (someone unaffiliated with your boss’ company) your wages instead of giving them to you, why would that be wrong? I presume that you would think these things were morally wrong. If you do, your next statement (that ‘the world doesn’t owe you a single thing’) is false, if ‘the world’ means ‘every other human being’ – your boss owes you your wages. Even on a fundamental level, you are owed something (by others) by virtue of your status as a human being – a basic level of respect for your dignity, so that you will not be raped, tortured or murdered for the amusement of another human being.

Why should someone give something when they get nothing back? Because they have a moral obligation to. This applies to charity as well (and unemployment benefit, but I know you’re not into state redistribution of wealth). Moral obligations can justify a great number of value-asymmetrical transactions. I have a moral obligation to pull a drowning child out of a shallow pond, even at the cost of ruining my brand new shoes. If you disagree with the existence of moral obligations, and that their strength can sometimes override mutual value gains in an exchange, that’s fair enough. But I strongly suspect that you don’t.

If you see racism (the differential treatment of a person purely on the basis of their race) as being morally wrong because you’re treating a person differently because of things they are not responsible for, you should also see ‘lookism’ from the attractive as being morally wrong. There is no substantive difference between the two.

One final thing: it’s disappointing that someone who is usually so eloquent and has such interesting ideas (feminism as a sexual trade union being one of them) has resorted to the ‘you’re an unlaid bitter gamma!’ charge. If I were a sex magnet with a harem of supermodels it wouldn’t change the truth or falsity of my argument. Even so, I’d hope that you’d take my intentions charitably when arguing – I’m not trolling, and not trying to score a vendetta against the high school jock. Just arguing for a different view in an attempt to make the world a fairer, better place. [You’re welcome to hold whatever views you want, to disagree with me (which I note you do politely and systematically) and so on. I’m just telling you that what you are doing is pussy repellant. Perhaps you can compartmentalise it to this corner of the internet but do not under any circumstances take this attitude into set. K.]

Johnson I think you are correct in terms of how people should treat each other in society.. Who those hot women choose to MATE with on the other hand is a different matter and is more subject to the laws of the jungle. A key concept is that “Life is not fair” and you can’t legislate it to be so (although attempts at that are happening more and more as we all see – making more and more people ‘takers’).

I didn’t think it was ‘fair’ last night when I (6’4″ with very good (8-9 on man scale) looks), well dressed, polite, and semi-bodybuilder physique was asked to leave the bar tableside by a bouncer because 2 girls (6-7’s) surreptitiously told the waiter to have him come remove us hahaha. Funny to say now but truth to tell it actually shook us up a little bit at the time

‘pretty girls who may be ruthlessly cutting to an unattractive man (and vice versa) on the approach are in many cases completely unjustified in doing so; in fact, it’s morally reprehensible’

Morals are not the conclusions of reason. They are formed out of an evolutionary and spontaneous social order. You are trying to rationalise something that is inherently irrational and I would argue that it is immoral to try and interfere with these processes.

In other words leave pretty young girls alone to make their own choices about how they use their value and leave men alone to decide how they want to appropriate their value rather than having it expropriated from them and redistributed by the state or the legal system. The latter is becoming a serious problem because little Johnny Beta is getting into a sorry state in the UK & US thanks to the relentless (direct and tacit) attacks on him by the Government.

Cad and Bounder: I don’t totally understand what you’re saying, but it looks very much like you’re making a descriptive claim about the origin of morality (morals are products of the relevant social order) and then deriving a prescriptive moral judgment from it (it is immoral to interfere with the existing social order). Is this what you’re saying? Sounds like moral relativism (which is wrong for various reasons).

I have to agree with this.
I agree because every woman has a different criteria when it comes to what she likes in the type of man she wants. You can meet stunners and get blown out hard, and other stunners who are eating off the palm of your hand.
I know this from experience from getting a mixed response of 8’s and 9’s rejecting me thinking i was trash or getting greeted sexually with open arms.
For that reason, i dont really look at it as value, but whether you have ‘what that particular girl’ needs.
It’s impossible to cater to everyone. So all we can ever is to put ourselves out their and approach. Its all a numbers game after all.

When you (N Krauser) stand infront of a girl personally, you seem pretty relaxed and therefore more clear minded (ref videos), better at convo so on. However If you stand there thinking you are lower status,, “Gamma” whether you deserve her, etc surely that would knock you off your own base socially and sexually? Having said that i have slipped into my own traps more than once.

Sometimes it’s hard to diagnose, and tell what the feedback specifically means. If you’re not a complete beginner or master, that is.

If I approach 10 girls,
1-2 won’t stop at all
3-4 will leave right after the opener
and
4-5 will stop and chat,

3 will excuse themselves and go in a minute or two later
1-2 will talk for up to 5 minutes

I’ll ask for a number from about 2 among the girls that stopped to chat. 1 will say she has a BF, one will give a flakey #
(1 in 100 will meet for a day2, 1 in 150 will lay on day2 or sameday)

what do you think that means? (both in terms of internal value and game mechanics)?

Like the message in the overall article (and responses to the comments). Mental constructions about how the world is unfair are pointless and do no service to you. The world will give you feedback about what you’ll be able to get from it, and it’s your job (if you so choose) to change that feedback to, well, get what you want from the world.

awesome. I am a fan of anyone who gets out there in the broad daylight without any buzz on and does this. I am starting the process (have done it in other countries but not as a strategy or process) and although I’ll approach at night relentlessly, this is virgin territory for me and, I might say, daunting. With regard to your stats: As Mark Cuban (owner of Mavericks and got his billion in paypal or something) said “You only gotta be right once”

Johnson, Jack: This is for you. I took 15 minutes to look up this old clip of wisdom from a fairly young man which I find totally on the mark so ya better watch it. That I saw it over a year ago and it’s still in my mind says something. Best and most beneficial 9 minutes you’ll spend today unless it’s naked with a hot young philly:

“Life is not fair” strikes me as a deeply evil platitude. There is no reason you couldn’t have applied that maxim to slavery or child abuse. The problem with the Matt Hussey video is that it misses the psychology; the ‘waiter’ may be a former creator who has had a ton of negative experiences where people have told him he is a creeper, weirdo etc. He would actually be mis-calibrating if he didn’t take this empirical data into consideration.

The unfairness can seem evil and it’s not fair. When I was in church this morning listening to an unbelievalbly good singer and I can barely hum on key, it also struck me as an incredibly inequitable world but…..what are ya gonna do ? Shall we legislate that those good singers not be allowed to sing that well because it’s not fair to us non-singers?

I sure felt like a creeper and weirdo when the 2 x 6-7’s told a waiter to get security to ask us to leave their table and stop chatting with them Friday night. Then I felt like a King when I had the girl I’m dating in my bed on Saturday night. The truth is surely in between. I think what Matt Hussey is saying is learn your lessons, draw the proper conclusions, and take the appropriate action if you get labeled a creeper or weirdo. As for my Friday night: I talked too much about myself, missed some signals of disinterest, and kept ploughing too long when the conversation got slow. I will not do that again (Plus they were bitches and I should not have given them that much effort in the 1st place). I approach quite often now and it’s a rare evening where I don’t get at least one hard blowout or incorrectly handled challenge. See Hussey’s video again – those are the X’s that he writes for things that don’t work.

I think that we ought to redistribute equally across persons the resources we appropriate that are attributable to morally arbitrary factors (i.e. those natural endowments that are deserved). If the singer was born with an incredible voice and did not have to put in any effort at all to be able to sing like he does, and he makes money from his singing, then we should ABSOLUTELY redistribute the money he makes from it. We do not, however, make sure he never sings again, because he might want to sing and appropriate no resources from it.

However, if the singer worked for years to get an incredible voice, the portion of the money he makes from his singing that is redistributed ought to be directly proportional to the portion of his vocal ability is down to natural talent.

[That’s enough. Fuck off, you slimy socialist cunt. All further comments will be mocked, ignored or deleted. K.]

It’s good, but it stops just before he talks about the part which is so important (and often overlooked by so many people advising you to ‘Go for it’), which is WHY you hold back from risking failure, and how to free yourself from your inner handicaps, and what is the mentality which will enable you to enjoy the process (try & fail, over & over) as much as possible.

I think I may have that part figured out for myself okay, but I love to see it addressed well, and I believe many people need to learn about it.
I looked for the next part of Matt Hussey’s video, on Youtube, but didn’t see it …

Today I only did one approach sadly and experience a harsh rejection, this article helps me discover why. I was in a very good state after gym and also because i’ve picked up a girl in a club on the weekend but when I was harshly rejected by this girl I understand that you never have to listen to your ego, my ego was very big before and very little after the approach.

Errrmm.. maybe Oxford Street isn’t the best place in London to do cold approaches? Methinks the infestation of game-queering weirdos there is the result of various game-training outfits setting them loose there, since the same tendency towards rote learning an approach also inclines a person to rote learn where to do it. Think outside the box to get in the box..